Karnataka High Court
Ratnavva W/O Yallappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 December, 2020
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P.NO.101563/2020 C/W
CRL.P.NO.101576/2020
CRL.P.NO.101563/2020
BETWEEN:
1 . RATNAVVA W/O YALLAPPA
W/O. YALLAPPA RAMAPUR,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HERUR, TQ. HANAGAL,
DIST. HAVERI
2 . MALLAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJ RAMAPUR,
AGE. 37 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK,
R/O. HERUR, TQ. HANAGAL,
DIST. HAVERI. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.: M B GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
AT. DHARWAD,
THROUGH ADUR POLICE STATION,
HANAGAL CIRCLE. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.V.S.KALSURMATH, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND RELEASE
THE PETITIONERS ON REGULAR BAIL IN ADUR
P.S.CR.NO.142/2020, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 354, 302, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ON THE FILE
OF CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC COURT. HANAGAL.
CRL.P.NO.101576/2020
CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O YALLAPPA RAMAPUR
AGE 38 YEARS,
OCC: AT PRESENT RAILWAY EMPLOYEE,
R/O HERUR, TQ HANAGAL,
DIST HAVERI. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M .B. GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD
THROUGH ADUR POLICE STATION
HANAGAL CIRCLE. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND RELEASE
THE PETITIONERS ON REGULAR BAIL IN ADUR
P.S.CR.NO.142/2020, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 354, 302, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ON THE FILE
OF CIVIL JDUGE AND JMFC COURT. HANAGAL.
3
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl.P.No.101563/2020 and Crl.P.No. 101576/2020 arise out of Crime No.142/2020 of Adur police station, Haveri. Hence, taken up together and disposed of by a common order.
2. In Crl.P.No.101563/2020 petitioners are accused Nos.4 and 5 and in Crl.P.101576/2020 petitioner is accused No.2. Both the petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 323, 354 r/w 149 of IPC, on the complaint lodged by one Shaila Virupakshappa Ramapur. 4
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record.
4. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant is the wife of the deceased namely Virupakshappa. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers, accused No.4 is the mother and accused No.5 is the wife of accused No.1. There is a civil dispute between accused persons and the deceased. In this background, on 19/10/2020 at about 12.15 pm, on seeing the accused persons cutting the teak wood tree situated in the disputed land, the deceased questioned them as to why they are cutting the trees when the case is pending in the Court. At that time, all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing his murder, abused him in filthily 5 language and accused No.1 at the instigation of other accused persons assaulted the deceased with an axe on his head, on account of which he sustained grievous injury to his head and died on the spot. Thereafter, all the accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequence and went away.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on account of a civil dispute, a false case has been foisted against the entire family members. He submits that the only overt act against the present petitioners is that they have abused the complainant and the deceased and instigated accused No.1. He submits that the complainant has improved her version stage by stage and therefore the allegations that the petitioners have instigated accused No.1 to commit the offence is doubtful. He further 6 submits that accused No.2 is an employee of South Western Railway, working on a contract basis and he is residing separately at Hanagal. On the relevant date, he was on duty from 8.00 am to 7.00 pm. Hence, he submits that the complainant to wreak vengeance has implicated the entire family members of accused No.1. He submits that accused No.4 and 5 are women folk. Accused No.4 is aged about 60 years. He further submits that accused No.3 has been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, he seeks to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. In response, the learned HCGP has opposed grant of bail to the petitioners contending that the investigation is still under 7 progress and all the accused persons have formed an unlawful assembly with a common object of committing the murder of complainant's husband and in view of the same, petitioners are equally liable for the incident in question.
7. In the complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased, the overt acts attributed against the present petitioners are that they have abused the deceased and assaulted the complainant when she tried to rescue him and accused No.2 instigated accused No.1 to commit the murder of complainant's husband. The specific overt act of assaulting the deceased on his head with an axe is against accused No.1. Postmortem report would reveal that cause of death is on account of head injury. It is brought to the notice of this Court that accused No.3 has 8 been enlarged on bail. Further statement of the complainant was recorded on 20/10/2020 and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 12/11/2020. Though there are variations in her statements, the veracity of the same cannot be gone into at this stage. However, in all her statements she has attributed the overt act against accused No.1 as the one who assaulted with an axe on the head of the deceased. The prosecution has to establish the case against the petitioners herein after a full fledged trial.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioners who are already arrested and interrogated can be enlarged on bail, by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:
9
ORDER
a) Both the petitions are allowed.
b) Petitioner-accused Nos.4 and 5 in Crl.P.No.101563/2020 and petitioner-
accused No.2 in Crl.P.No.101576/2020, in Crime No.142/2020 of Adur Police Station, shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond, each in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential address and shall inform the Court regarding change in their address, if any.
iii) The petitioners shall appear
before the Jurisdictional Police
Station and mark their
attendance, on 1st and 16 t h of
every month between 10.00 a.m.
10
and 2.00 p.m., till filing of the final report.
iv) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
v) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
vi) Petitioners shall appear before
the trial Court on all date of
hearing, unless exempted for any genuine cause.
vii) Petitioners shall maintain peace and tranquility in the locality and they shall not involve in any criminal activities.
Sd/-
JUDGE Vmb